Wednesday. October 20th. VI.

Attended Prayers and recitation this morning as usual. Mr. Hey• { 402 } ward being extremely complaisant, I was free with a remarkably easy passage. Mr.
Everett lectured as usual. He continued his notice of the Cyclic Poets. He also
discussed the origin of the term, which however is entire in the pamphlet.1 His result was that they obtained their name only from the
choice of the subjects of which they treated. They are generally dull and servile
poets which explains a passage quoted from Horace. They were imitators of Homer but
it is extremely probable that these were the sources from which the works of Homer
and Hesiod were interpolated. It is doubtful whether many of these poems survived
long in Greece. The fragments were collected and made models for imitation by the
Alexandrian School who then put them forth as the true original poems. Some of these
still exist. One by Quintus Calaber, hereafter to be mentioned, who flourished in
the sixth century and wrote a poem in imitation of the lesser Iliad of Lesches. One
of Tzetzes is still inferior, a writer “who lived” says Heyne “I will not say
flourished.” These ancient poems are principally interesting to us in connexion with
the Aeneid of Virgil who drew many things from other sources than Homer and probably
differed from him. Macrobius asserts that he borrowed from Pisander which is not
true and proved so by Heyne. Two poems are the principal guides of Virgil when he
departs from Homer, the Lesser Iliad of Lesches and the sack of Troy by Arctinus the
Milesian. The first is ascribed to Homer himself in the life attributed to
Herodotus. Lesches is however generally reputed the author. Nothing is known of him
but that he was a native of Smyrna. We hear of his poem from the mention made of it
by the ancient authors who have come down to us. From Aristotle, who gives its
argument. It is remarkable that it has given eight subjects to the Attic stage while
the greater work has given but two. We know something of it from the Iliac table,
a
curious relic, the object of which seemed to be a sort of synopsis for schools as
it
contains the subjects of the poems both of Homer and the lesser poets, roughly
sketched, also the names of the authors &c. He showed us an engraving of this
Iliac table, which is preserved in the capitol of Rome, after lecture was over.

The other poem is the sack of Troy by Arctinus the Milesian, which we hear of
through Proclus who is [the] great authority for the other poem
also. The Iliac table contains another work of this author, but not this, although
it probably furnishes some materials for it. Of this class of poets Heyne makes two
observations. It is to be wished that some person should make an accurate treatise
upon them, should compare and collect the fragments. In this way he would do the { 403 } greatest service as he would illustrate the classics which is all
the object we have in view to know them. It is also to be observed and to be
regretted that the greatest sacrifices in Greek literature have been made in times
when there were abundant means to preserve them.

After lecture I went to the reading room and saw nothing but electioneering
manoeuvres which now fill the papers. I soon returned to my room and spent my
morning writing notes. Attended Mr. Farrar’s recitation and lecture which was a
continuation of his observations upon comets. In the afternoon, I was again
extremely negligent in my lesson. Mr. Hedge came upon our side in the review and put
me in a fright for a little while. I escaped however. We had no drill after Prayers
as usual, the Juniors being in somewhat of a complaining humour and the weather
being bad.

In the Evening I wrote my Journal and attended Mr. Ticknor’s Lecture which was
quite a pleasant one to me as I was enabled to judge of the works he talked of. The
next branch which he should take up he said was that of Epistolary composition. The
person who most distinguished herself here was Madame de Sevigne who was born in
1626, and being an Orphan, was educated by her Uncle. In her youth she was not
handsome but striking, and although receiving the usual instruction of that period,
it was very deficient, and probably contributed to her success by throwing her upon
her own exertions. She was married at 18, and a widow at 25, and spent the remainder
of her life in attention upon her son and daughter, more particularly the latter,
whom she perfectly doted upon, and whom she watched with so much attention in a
sickness as to injure her own health, in consequence of which she died in 1696 being
70 years old. To prove how great her purity was, no scandal which was so common with
the characters of that age, has ever attached to that name. She was neither a
“prude” in early years nor a “devote” in her age. Her letters to her daughter are
the only productions we have of her and are models. The loss of them would not only
have made a chasm in the literature of France but in that of the world. Her grace
and imagination, the confidence of her sympathy, the pictures of the society of that
age render her letters brilliant, faithful and interesting. She gives an admirable
view of the illustrious days of Louis 14th. There is a vivacity of manner and
happiness of detail which can be found nowhere else. But her last and prevailing
merit is her affection for her daughter which gives her letters the appearance of
a
whole—an inspiration which imparted it’s power to whatever it touched.

After her there were a diversity of authors. Madame de Maintenon wrote and she is
perhaps the best of the series. Correspondence degenerated a little too much into
scandal, and although all the works in this way are amusing, they are merely a
reflection, although a correct reflection of the manners of the court, and therefore
they finally become tiresome. Among these may be counted Madame Deffand, Madame
Espinasse,2 Voltaire, and many others. The next
branch which he takes up is that of History which the French have never been
successful in, at least in formal history; they are generally long and dull.
Mezeray, Father Daneil, St. Real and Vertot3 have
all written but not remarkably well. In a branch of history however, Memoirs, they
have been exceedingly successful and they have written much. He mentioned Sully in
his first lecture which I did not hear; he tonight treated of Cardinal de Retz. He
wrote Memoirs in four volumes. Few books of a more amazing character have existed,
they display at length the intrigues of the French and are most remarkable for their
exhibition of personal vanity. This man was born for intrigue but his indolence
deterred him from gaining any thing by it. His life is a continued example of the
deepest intrigue without any result of importance. The mountain was perpetually
bringing forth a mouse. His book is entertaining as a perfectly measured display of
himself and his times. He here shifts away with a mere mention of the rest of this
branch as a very large collection.

He next came to Rochefoucauld who was born in 1613 and whose education was
neglected, which made him think probably, and the author of a book whimsical,
original and false. In his Maxims he thought selfishness the only motive of action.
He was a man who did not believe in the existence of virtues and with these opinions
it is not surprising that he should die little regretted except by his immediate
circle of friends. Of La Bruyere I shall speak tomorrow. I returned home, wrote a
theme, sat a little while with Richardson and then went to bed. XI.